A case study of a graduate educational technology course that followed the HyFlex course design

1. The 2013 Graduate Research and
Arts Symposium. Las Cruces, NM.

2. The HyFlex Course Design: Exploring
Students’ Meanings of the Learning
Experience
Mariam Abdelmalak
Doctoral Candidate,
Curriculum & Instruction department,
College of Education

3. The HyFlex Course Design:

4. The Purpose of the Study:
• The purpose of this study was to answer the
following questions:
1)What does the design of a course that follows a
HyFlex course design look like?
1)What are meanings students construct from the
learning experience of HyFlex course design?

5. Theoretical Framework:
• A learner-centered framework
• Flexible learning & Flexible delivery

6. A Learner-centered Framework:
• Considering student needs, interests, and goals
(McCombs, 2000; Ongeri, 2011; Dewey, 1938).
• Students’ control over their learning (Weimer,
2002; Cleveland-Innes & Emes, 2005; Yilmaz,
2009).

7. Flexible Learning & Flexible Delivery:
• Flexible learning: Interactive learning
environments to anyone, anyplace,
anytime by utilizing the attributes and
resources of the Internet and digital
technologies (Khan, 2007; Casey & Wilson,
2005; Singh, 2003).
• Flexible delivery: Focuses on options
regarding: the what, where, and when
learning occurs (Yusuf, 2009; Hill, 2006).

8. Method
• Qualitative Case Study.
• Data Gathering Methods:
 Observation: a graduate educational technology
course for 2:30 hours per week for one semester.
 Interview: the instructor & 6 graduate students.
 Cross-Case Analysis

9. The Design of an Educational technology Course That
Followed the HyFlex Design:
Before HyFlex Design After HyFlex Design
Face-to-face Face-to-face + online +
class recordings
Meeting every week Meeting twice a
month

10. Sample Week:
Face-to-face Online students Students who do not
students attend either face-to-
face or online
Share verbally thought Share verbally using Listen to the class recording,
& ideas microphone and share and respond in the discussion
screen features in adobe area.
connect room
Can use chat in adobe Use chat Discussion area
connect room
Online students
Face-to-face students collaborate together
collaborate together using adobe connect
room

11. Students’ meanings:

12. The Instructor Flexibility to Accommodate to
students’ needs & Circumstances:
• She is very accommodating to her students need. She
recognizes that in order to meet students’ needs,
accommodations need to be met in more ways than just
learning accommodations. It is also a physical space,
physical presence accommodation. I appreciate that very
much. (Sara)
• She understands life happens. It is recognition to the fact
that she is working with people who have life outside
academia, people who have jobs and kids and family and
what else can happen. That she recognizes we are adult
that we are running things that will break our schedule
from cannot make the face to face, so the recording and
the online option are there in case something happens.
(Sonia)

13. The Instructor Flexibility to Accommodate to
students’ needs & Circumstances:
• She accommodates to my needs of time by allowing
me to attend online, otherwise I will not be able to
take this course. (Sara)
• The instructor openness to meet students’ needs
helped me to engage and participate in the class.
(Sammy)

14. Increased access:
• Even if I did not attend the live section, I was still able
to listen to the recording and know what was talked
about and got a sense of what I missed. So being
able to listen to the recording does keep me on the
track. I do not feel like: I am falling behind because I
missed a week. (Sammy)
• With recoding the class history, I am able to attend.
Even when I cannot attend, I am still attending. I can
go back and review, I can go back and capture just a
piece of that information, see the presentation again
if I want to repeat it, if I did not understand
something I can go back and check my
understanding. (Sara)

15. Differentiated Instruction:
• It makes more convenient for our learning styles
because we all have different learning styles. If you
are more comfortable to be in a face-to-face
environment, it is great. Or if you do not need face-
to-face interactions, you can learn from home. Just
choose what makes you learn better. (Karl)
• There is more than one way to learn. Learning
expectations are the same, but this does mean it has
to be all one-way. I think she tries to say: I have these
expectation you have to get out of the course but we
can approach it with different ways of doing it and
give you some choices and give you some flexibility
and still get the learning outcome. (Sammy)

16. Student control:
• Traditional delivery is a matter of control from the school
and from the instructor, it forces you to conform to what
they want and what they believe is the most efficient
methodology of delivery. (Sonia)
• But in this class, we recognize that the most efficient
method of delivery may be different for each person, that
due to constrains external to academic life, we may not
be able to attend class in person, but we will benefit from
the online and if something comes up where we cannot
even manage that, then we benefit from the recording.
So it is a recognition that not everyone has to attend
every class and take notes. We are taking control of our
own learning situation, rather than someone else is in
control of it. (Sonia)

17. Conclusion:
• Adult learners need flexible learning so they can
balance study, work, family and other commitments.
• Educators of adult learners are actively encouraged
to find effective and flexible delivery models to
provide all students with more convenient access to
quality learning experiences than is possible with
traditional on campus offerings alone.
• This requires that instructors of adult learners value
providing participation choices to students more
than they value forcing everyone into the “best” way
of learning a set of content (Beatty, 2010).

18. References:
• Beatty, B. (2006, October). Designing the HyFlex world - Hybrid, flexible courses for all students. Paper
presented at the 2006 Association for Educational Communication and Technology International
Conference, Dallas, TX.
• Beatty, B. (2007). Hybrid classes with flexible participation options – If you build it, how will they come?
Paper presented at the 2007 Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual
Convention (October), Anaheim, CA. retrieved October 7, 2012, from
http://itec.sfsu.edu/hyflex/beatty_hyflex_participation_aect_2007.pdf
• Beatty, B. (2008). Using the "HyFlex" course and design process. 2008 Sloan-C Effective Practice Award.
Retrieved October 7, 2012, from http://sloanconsortium.org/effective_practices/using-quothyflexquot-
course-and-design-process
• Beatty, B. (2010). Hybrid courses with flexible participation- The HyFlex design. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2012,
from http://itec.sfsu.edu/hyflex/hyflex_course_design_theory_2.2.pdf
• Beatty, B. (2012). HyFlex course design: The advantages of letting students choose the blend. 9 th Annual
Sloan Consortium Blended Learning Conference & Workshop. Retrieved October 7, 2012, from
http://sloanconsortium.org/conference/2012/blended/hyflex-course-design-advantages-letting-students-
choose-blend
• Casey, J., & Wilson, P. (2005). A practical guide to providing flexible learning in further and higher
education. Retrieved October 7, 2012, from http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/publications/a-
practical-guide-to-providing-flexible-learning-in-further-and-higher-education.pdf
• De George-Walker, L., & Keeffe, M. (2010). Self-determined blended learning: A case study of blended
learning design. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1). Retrieved October 7, 2012, from
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/8603/2/De_George-Walker_Keeffe_HERD_v29n1_AV.pdf
• Dowling, C., Godfrez, J., & Gyles, N. (2003, December). Do hybrid flexible delivery teaching methods

19. References:
• Hill, J. (2006). Flexible learning environments: Leveraging the affordances of flexible delivery and flexible
learning. Innovative High Education, 31, 187–197.
• Khan, B. (2007). Flexible learning in an open and distributed environment. In B. Khan (Ed.) Flexible learning
in an information society (pp. 1-17). USA: Information science Publishing.
• King, B. (1996). Life, learning and flexible delivery. Journal of Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-13.
• MacDonald, J. (2006). Blended learning and online tutoring: A good practice guide, Aldershot, UK: Gower
Publishing Co.
• Singh, H. (2003). Building Effective Blended Learning Programs. Educational Technology, 43 (6), 51-54.
•
• Stake, R. (1998). Case Studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 86-109).
London: Sage Publications.
• Tao, J., Fore, C., & Forbes, W. (2011). Seven best face-to-face teaching practices in a blended learning
environment. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 1(3), 20-29.
• Ugur, B., Akkoyunlu, B., & Kurbanoglu, S. (2011). Students’ opinions on blended learning and its
implementation in terms of their learning styles. Education and Information Technologies, 16(1), 5-23.
• Yusuf, J. (2009). Flexible delivery issues: The case of the university of the South Pacific. Retrieved October
15, 2012, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jun_09/article05.htm

20. Q&A
Thank You